(I just feel the need to mention that silly hypotheticals are one of my very favorite Buffista things. But that I would vote NO to the Nutty's Butt thread no matter how many times it comes up.)

With all due respect, I'd like to make a motion that 4 months be considered. I believe that Rebecca L and Lyra Jane have informally seconded it. Anyone else?

If it has to be narrowed down to 2 choices, then between 4 months and 6 months.

3 months is too soon, 1 year is too long, and likewise, I think 6 months is also too long. 4 months = 3x/year possible discussion.

24 hours to get seconds? Everyone agreeing that this appropriate has a home computer with unlimited access day or night. IJS. Not all of us do. If I have a busy Friday and Monday at work, with no home computer, I could be absent for 4-5 days. If you're on all the time, that can seem like an eternity, but it really isn't IRL.

OTOH, I don't expect that this should be designed to work around me, but do want to voice my experience/set of circumstances as representative of at least one person here.

And, how about all the people off on vacation this week? For example.

Wasn't some of this designed to make it less everyone-who's-on-right-now-gets-to-decide-everything?

And now I have to work for the next several hours, so, later.

3 months is too soon, 1 year is too long, and likewise, I think 6 months is also too long. 4 months = 3x/year possible discussion.

This is my position as well.

As for how much time people should have to get seconds ... why do we need a time limit? I would bet that most issues will get seconds with in a matter of minutes to hours. But if something doesn't, for whatever reasons, and three weeks later someone comes up with a fourth, I see no reason why their second should be invalid.

(BTW, if something is proposed and fails to get enough seconds, does it move to the list of Forbidden Topics, or can they bring it up again the next day?)

Language about "extraordinary circumstances"

How would we decide what constitutes extraordinary circumstances? Cause, I have a pretty high tolerance for things that are out of the ordinary that don't qualify as extraordinary.

I don't think we can talk about putting a list of "WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHANGE OF STATUS" on a ballot. We can never come up with all of the possible situations.

Ack, that would be a nightmare. But my proposal was a method to decide what constitutes a change of status. I'm afraid if we leave it to old style consensus then the moratorium won't be strong enough, because a simple old style consensus would break it. Since the moratorium should be practically ironclad we should have a formal and almost insurmountable method to break it, like a supermajority vote.

I agree with

As for how much time people should have to get seconds ... why do we need a time limit? I would bet that most issues will get seconds with in a matter of minutes to hours. But if something doesn't, for whatever reasons, and three weeks later someone comes up with a fourth, I see no reason why their second should be invalid.

In order to deal with the problem of

(BTW, if something is proposed and fails to get enough seconds, does it move to the list of Forbidden Topics, or can they bring it up again the next day?)

So once something's been proposed, it's been proposed, and if it doesn't get seconds immediately, it can just sit around for awhile until either someone decides to second it or people forget about it. That way, there won't be a need to keep reproposing something.

Hil, we are thinking alike on this one ;-).

I'm just thinking that if it only takes four seconds to bring on a vote, that if you leave the proposal out there long enough then everything proposed will have to be voted on. Which sort of negates the impulse to have seconds.

The argument against would be that if something is proposed at a meeting and it doesn't get enough seconds in that meeting you don't leave it open forever until it collects enough seconds eight meetings down the road.

As for the main question, I don't mind if it's between 4 and 6 months as long as you can evenly divide the year with it. So 4 works as a low end, unless somebody still wants to push for 3. I'd rather have the choice between two options for the vote however.

I've got no problem with the choices being 4 and 6.

I'm good with 4 and 6.

as long as you can evenly divide the year with it.

Care to explain why?

(Not that I'm lobbying for 5 or 7, but...why?)